H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - (1.) APPLICANT was convicted by a Magistrate First Class Under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 250/ - . In default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal the conviction and sentence of the Applicant was affirmed by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal; hence this revision.
(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution Applicant was found exposing for sale Kesari Dal at his shop in Kotdwar on 8 -12 -1964. Sri Iswari Prasad Ghildiyal, Food Inspector take a sample of the Dal in accordance with the rules a part of which was subsequently analysed by the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst is as follows: (1) The sample contains 100% Dal of Kesari Lathyrus Sativus. (2) The sample obtains no other food grains. (3) The sample contains no foreign matter. (4) The sample contains no damaged or insect damaged grains. (5) The sample contains no added colour. He further added that I the sample contains Dal of Lathyrus Sativus Kesari as declared by the vendor lathyrus contains toxic ingredients which renders the sample of food injurious to health. On the report of the Public Analyst Applicant was put up on trial for exposing for sale adulterated food.
(3.) AT the trial Applicant as a truthful person admitted every allegation of the prosecution but stated that the Dal which he was exposing for sale was not adulterated. No question was put to the Applicant as to whether it was sold for human consumption or for being consumed by the cattle. No evidence was led to show that the Applicant was exposing it for sale for human consumption. It is, therefore, obvious that the prosecution of the Applicant on the allegation that he was sealing adulterated food material was wholly misconceived.;